Tribunal grants appeal on THC charges, bills of lading, and CHA services, remands cleaning activity for certificate verification.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant for charges related to THC, bills of lading, and origin haulage, citing relevant precedents. The matter concerning cleaning activity was remanded for verification of a certificate provided by the appellant. For CHA services, the Tribunal permitted the refund due to cross-references in the invoices. As a result, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, granting the refund based on the Tribunal's findings.

---

---

Issues:
- Rejection of service tax refund on various grounds including THC charges, bills of lading charges, origin haulage charges, repo charges, non-submission of proof of payment of service tax on GTA services, improper invoice submission, and cleaning activity not meeting Notification conditions.
- CHA services refund denied due to missing description of goods in CHA invoices and lack of details of other expenses.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the rejection of a service tax refund amounting to Rs. 1,39,361 for the period from 1.07.2008 to 30.09.2008. The grounds for rejection included various charges not falling under Port Services, lack of proof of tax deposition under port services, non-submission of proof of service tax payment on GTA services, improper invoice submission, and cleaning activity not meeting specific conditions.

2. The appellant argued that the rejection grounds related to THC charges, bills of lading charges, and origin haulage charges were untenable, citing precedents like Shivam Exports & Ors., SRF Ltd. vs CCE, Jaipur, and Suncity Art Exports & Ors. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, following the precedents, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant for these issues.

3. Regarding the cleaning activity issue, the appellant claimed that the service was essential for export and was not taxable as per a Board's Circular. The appellant provided a certificate from the Competent Authority to support this claim. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Original Authority for verification of the certificate. If found valid, the refund would be granted.

4. In the case of CHA services, the issue was the absence of a description of goods in CHA invoices and the lack of details of other expenses. The Tribunal noted that the invoices contained cross-references to S.B./Invoice with goods descriptions. Citing the decision in Shivam Exports vs. CCE, the Tribunal ruled that the refund amount was permissible to the appellant.

5. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant, with the Tribunal allowing the refund based on the above considerations.

---